A survey of undergraduate teaching in anaesthesia

• Published in: Anaesthesia 1999-01, Vol.54 (1), p.4-12
• Main Authors: Cheung, V., Critchley, L. A. H., Hazlett, C., Wong, E. L. Y., Oh, T. E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anaesthesia; Anesthesia; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Anesthesiology - education; Asia, Southeastern; Australia; Biological and medical sciences; Canada; Critical Care; Curriculum; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - organization & administration; Education; undergraduate curriculum; Educational Measurement - methods; Emergency Medicine - education; Humans; Ireland; Medical sciences; Miscellaneous; New Zealand; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 0003-2409; 1365-2044
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00640.x

Currently, no well accepted and clearly defined ‘core’ curriculum for undergraduate anaesthesia teaching exists. To address this deficiency, we surveyed 73 university departments of anaesthesia and intensive care. Sixty‐five replied from South‐east Asia (12), Australasia (13), the UK and Ireland (28) and Canada (12). A questionnaire containing 37 items ranging from departmental structure to curriculum content was used. We found significant regional differences. Overall, most departments taught pharmacology of anaesthetic drugs (83%), pre‐operative assessment (92%) and care of the unconscious patient (77%). Ninety‐seven per cent taught airway management and intubation and 80% taught intravenous cannulation. Basic life support was taught by 92% and advanced life support by 71%. Fewer than half taught advanced trauma life support principles (44%). Critical care teaching was less well defined, but a consensus of schools taught respiratory failure and ventilation, management of circulatory shock and principles of sepsis and multi‐organ system failure. Practical clinical skills were taught mainly using patients and simulators, 46% had a skills laboratory and six employed a resuscitation officer. However, it should be noted that we did not assess the quality and outcome of teaching.